It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AndyMayhew
reply to post by 1nquisitive
So you accept that you cannot disprove that humans are affecting the climate and therefore they may well be. You just refute the science that quantifies the extent and methods.
(and yes, it is quantifiable, if you accept the science)
Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by jdub297
Wow, telling me I need to do research?
The square footage of forests has be reduced drastically over the past 150 years by human. That's a fact! The things you link don't negate this FACT. Ever heard of the forests of Lebanon? Beautiful trees talked about in the bible destroyed in a brief span of time.
So you completely ignore my facts and instead resort to insulting me and propagating things that don't actually negate my facts.
If what you're claiming is true, that forests drive climate, then humans are indeed causing climate change by destroying all the forests. You're a moron if you deny humans have destroyed countless acres of forests the past 150 years.
You're just upset your thread backfired on your face, and you proved the point you were trying to disprove.
Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Climate change is completely natural, and in fact trying to control/freeze it *is* the unnatural act, not the change itself. To try and halt climate change is unnatural. Moreover, why is it such a bad thing that the earth heats up in the long term (if it does at all)?
Originally posted by AndyMayhew
Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Climate change is completely natural, and in fact trying to control/freeze it *is* the unnatural act, not the change itself. To try and halt climate change is unnatural. Moreover, why is it such a bad thing that the earth heats up in the long term (if it does at all)?
Death by smallpox is completely natural as well Should we have no erradicated it?
However, humans do affect the climate, often to their detriment. Is it intelligent to continue doing so or to determine ways to prevent/reduce said impact?
You accept that human affect the climate. So why should we contiune doing so if we can avoid it?
Global warming skeptics will undoubtedly claim this new model is the most accurate, even if only one scientist is making the claim.
"Worse than we thought" has been one of the most durable phrases lately among those pushing for urgent action to stem the buildup of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
But on one critically important metric -- how hot the planet will get from a doubling of the pre-industrial concentration of greenhouse gases, a k a "climate sensitivity" -- some climate researchers with substantial publication records are shifting toward the lower end of the warming spectrum.
...
But while plenty of other climate scientists hold firm to the idea that the full range of possible outcomes, including a disruptively dangerous warming of more than 4.5 degrees C. (8 degrees F.), remain in play, it's getting harder to see why the high-end projections are given much weight.
This is also not a "single-study syndrome" situation, where one outlier research paper is used to cast doubt on a bigger body of work -- as Skeptical Science asserted over the weekend.
...
In fact, there is an accumulating body of reviewed, published research shaving away the high end of the range of possible warming estimates from doubled carbon dioxide levels.
Chief among climate scientists critical of the high-sensitivity holdouts is James Annan, an experienced climate modeler based in Japan who contributed to the 2007 science report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
...
He's reinforced his view in light of the latest research and temperature patterns. On Jan. 27, he posted a comment on Dot Earth that in the last few days has resurfaced in many places around the Web. Here's the most important line from Annan's Dot Earth comment, in which he notes how recent events point to less warming from a given buildup of carbon dioxide:
“[T]here have now been several recent papers showing much the same - numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.”
I cannot accept that throughout the past couple of decades of climate modelling that climatologists have not taken vapour and evaporation, temperature gradients and differential air densities into account in their models.
The heart of our global climate is the sun, for it is the heat we receive from it that is circulated around the planet that drives our climate.
Reading the IPCC’s reports, one finds that there is an apparent consensus that modern human activities dominate the causes of climate change, leading to the philosophy of AGW (anthropogenic global warming). The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (the FAR, published in 2007), as with earlier reports, identifies several physical agencies altering the climate either through heating or, in a few cases, cooling. These are termed Radiative Forcing (RF) factors.
All except one of the RF factors the IPCC describes are man-made … .
…
The single natural RF component included by the IPCC in its calculations is solar variability: that is, changes in the intrinsic energy output by the Sun, and therefore alterations in the flux of sunlight reaching our planet. “The only increase in natural forcing of any significance between 1750 and 2005 occurred in solar irradiance” states the FAR, the increase being estimated to lie between 0.06 and 0.30 W/m2, with a best-guess of 0.12. The latter figure is less than ten percent of the AGW estimate [attributable to man].
I cannot accept that throughout the past couple of decades of climate modelling that climatologists have not taken vapour and evaporation, temperature gradients and differential air densities into account in their models.
The heart of our global climate is the sun, for it is the heat we receive from it that is circulated around the planet that drives our climate.
Reading the IPCC’s reports, one finds that there is an apparent consensus that modern human activities dominate the causes of climate change, leading to the philosophy of AGW (anthropogenic global warming). The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (the FAR, published in 2007), as with earlier reports, identifies several physical agencies altering the climate either through heating or, in a few cases, cooling. These are termed Radiative Forcing (RF) factors.
All except one of the RF factors the IPCC describes are man-made … .
…
The single natural RF component included by the IPCC in its calculations is solar variability: that is, changes in the intrinsic energy output by the Sun, and therefore alterations in the flux of sunlight reaching our planet. “The only increase in natural forcing of any significance between 1750 and 2005 occurred in solar irradiance” states the FAR, the increase being estimated to lie between 0.06 and 0.30 W/m2, with a best-guess of 0.12. The latter figure is less than ten percent of the AGW estimate [attributable to man].
Originally posted by AndyMayhew
reply to post by 1nquisitive
Well you started all this by asserting that 'AGW is a BS assumption'
I took that as meaning you do not accept that any human activity causes any global warming? What else was I meant to think?
Maybe I misunderstood you?
There is in my (and science) opinion no doubt that various human activities are causing global warming. And global cooling. And that natural factors also cause global warming. And global cooling. The next current result being warming. If we do not wish the warming trend of the past few decades to continue, it seems sensible to me to cut back on those activities whihc we know cause warming, and which in many cases are increasing (hence the recent failure of the 'new mini ice age' - warming has over-ridden what ought now be a noticeable cooling trend due to decreased solar activity and negative PDO)